Griswold v. Thornton
| Decision Date | 15 January 1901 |
| Parties | GRISWOLD ET AL. v. THORNTON ET AL. [1] |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from chancery court, Bullock county; Jere N. Williams Chancellor.
Bill by H. H. Griswold and others against W. M. Thornton and others. Decree for complainants, and respondents appeal. Dismissed.
Complainants prayed to have an action of ejectment enjoined, and errors in the description of certain lands contained in a deed to the complainants corrected, and that all interest in said lands be devested out of the defendants and invested in the complainants. Among the parties respondent to the bill, there were two minors, who were represented by Ernest L. Blue, as guardian ad litem. On the final submission of the cause the chancellor rendered a decree granting the relief prayed for by the complainants. From this decree all of the parties respondent took an appeal. The appeal bond or security for costs was signed by all the respondents. The said Ernest L Blue also signed the security for costs. The security for costs was signed by no other persons whatever. In this court there was a motion made to dismiss the appeal.
Ray Rushton, Francis G. Caffey, and E. L. Blue, for appellant.
J. D Norman, for appellees.
The appeal in this case was sued out in the name of all the respondents in the court below. The motion to dismiss the appeal is based upon two grounds; the first being that after the rendition of the final decree appealed from, and before the appeal was sued out, Emma Williams, one of the respondents in whose name the appeal was taken, had died. Sufficient to say that this ground of the motion has been met and obviated by a counter motion to amend the appeal so as to show that the same was taken in the name of all the respondents except the said Emma Williams.
The second ground of the motion is to dismiss for want of security for costs. The appeal, as we have said, was sued out in the name of all the respondents. Two of the respondents being minors, were represented by a guardian ad litem; and as representing such minors, and joining with the other respondents in the appeal, he became thereby, of his own motion, an actor, and liable for the costs of the appeal, just as any other party appealing. The persons signing the security for costs, which was taken and approved by the register, were parties to the suit. Ernest L. Blue, as guardian ad litem for the minors, and who joins with the appellant in taking the appeal, it is true, was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gray v. State ex rel. Atty. Gen.
...of appeal to this court. § 792, Title 7, Code 1940; Butler v. Foster, 14 Ala. 323; King & Owen v. McCann, 25 Ala. 471; Griswold v. Thornton, 129 Ala. 454, 30 So. 717; Harris v. Barber, 237 Ala. 138, 186 So. 160; American Federation of Musicians v. Moss, 277 Ala. 169, 168 So.2d 12. 'The majo......
-
Harris v. Barber
... ... 411; Colbert County v. Tennessee Valley ... Bank, supra; Western Union Telegraph Co. v ... Howington, 198 Ala. 311, 73 So. 550; Griswold v ... Thornton et al., 129 Ala. 454, 30 So. 717; King & ... Owen v. McCann, 25 Ala. 471 ... It ... follows that the motion to dismiss ... ...
-
Ringgold v. Graham
...49 Tex. 216; Labadie v. Dean, 47 Tex. 90; Gordon v. Robertson, 26 Ga. 410; Benson v. Shines, 107 Ga. 406, 33 S. E. 439; Griswold v. Thornton, 129 Ala. 454, 30 So. 717. The rule is well established that, where a deposit of cash, as security for an appeal, has not been authorized by statute, ......
-
Colbert County v. Tennessee Valley Bank
... ... King & Owen v. McCann, supra; Davis v. McCampbell, supra; ... Thompson v. Lea, 28 Ala. 453. In Griswold v ... Thornton, 129 Ala. 454, 30 So. 717, where the bond ... signed only by the parties before the court, held ... insufficient ... ...